MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY: SHORT UPDATE (SEE #3, BELOW)
Let me start with a word about how I happened to start blogging about this. Eric Schliesser (Amsterdam) first called Prof. Stevens's website to my attention, and then, upon his receiving some kind of confirmation from Sally Haslanger (MIT), he blogged about it. Others began sending me links as news stories began to break. It was pretty clear from the start that Prof. Stevens's account was, understandably, biased in her favor and incomplete; her rhetorical posture also did not enhance her credibility by my lights (but that is weak and defeasible evidence in a matter like this). I have, in the past, championed cases that were framed as Prof. Stevens framed hers: an outspoken professor being mistreated by a heavy-handed administration. But given my lawyerly instincts, I wait until I have more information before pressing forward (this is why, for example, I did not blog about Professor Sartwell's case initially, until I was persuaded he had been treated wrongfully--as the outcome suggests he was.) Victims are often made to look guilty unfairly, but miscreants almost always plead their innocence and sometimes try to play the victim (for example), so some caution is required in these matters.
Here is what I think we now know based on the various news accounts, and information supplied by Professors Stevens and Tillery on various occasions (as well as others):
1. On March 8, Prof. Stevens met with Prof. Tillery, in his capacity as Associate Chair, regarding course scheduling in the Department. This meeting did not end well. Prof. Stevens claimed Prof. Tillery screamed at her and slammed the door on her; Prof. Tillery claimed it was Prof. Stevens who behaved unprofessionally. (The University's investigator found in favor of Prof. Tillery on this point.)
2. Subsequently, Prof. Stevens began making statements about Prof. Tillery's conduct to others; Prof. Tillery claims these statements were false and defamatory. Prof. Tillery retained a lawyer who sent Prof. Stevens a demand letter that she cease and desist her alleged defamation and, allegedly, that she reimburse Prof. Tillery for his legal expenses. [9/11 UPDATE: Prof. Stevens has updated her website; the only relevant new information is a copy of the letter sent by Prof. Tillery's lawyer to her.]
3. Prof. Stevens refused, and asked the university to indemnify her against Prof. Tillery's legal threat. Before deciding whether indemnification was appropriate, the University hired an outside investigator, Kathleen Rinehart, the General Counsel of St. Xavier University here in Chicago, whose integrity Prof. Stevens has ceaselessly attacked since going public with events on September 1, but without any actual evidence of misconduct by the investigator.
4. The investigator found in favor of Prof. Tillery regarding the March 8 incident, but also reported that "most individuals" she interviewed "expressed serious concern about the unpredictability of Prof. Stevens' conduct" either toward themselves individually or towards others in the department, and that the "cumulative impact" of her conduct has been "debilitating" for normal department functioning.
5. These findings, it appears (I'm less certain about this), triggered some "process" (whose details and standards of evidence are unknown at this time) that resulted in Prof. Stevens being banned from campus and required to undergo a psychological evaluation.
6. Others who know both Prof. Stevens and Prof. Tillery have expressed the view that the behavior each has alleged to have engaged in is not consistent with what they know about these individuals. However, more than one individual (that is, in addition to Prof. Tillery) has alleged that Prof. Stevens's behavior has been uncivil and unsettling. No one apart from Prof. Stevens has made public allegations against Prof. Tillery.
7. All the preceding only became public because Prof. Stevens publicized the remedial measures in #5 on September 1, presenting them as retaliation for her outspoken political activism on and off campus.
What we do not know:
8. What explains the student's statement supporting Prof. Stevens's account regarding the March 8 incident? (I note that the "statement" is neither witnessed nor notarized, which makes me a bit uncertain about how it originated or its status.) There are allegations that the student retracted his account and/or was coached by Prof. Stevens in making the initial statement, but we do not know at this point.
9. What are the other precise allegations against Prof. Stevens uncovered by the investigator (per #4, above)? We may never know what these are, unless the matters end up in litigation, or other affected parties choose to waive confidentiality.
10. Have Prof. Stevens's due process rights as a tenured faculty member been protected in the course of the events related to #5?
11. Even if, per Prof. Tillery's allegations and the independent investigator's findings, Prof. Stevens behaved wrongfully (and perhaps on more than one occasion), what role has her outspoken political activism played in the Administration's willingness to sanction her for wrongful conduct?
Recent Comments